Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP tunnel and PW establishment over multiple different operators

venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com> Wed, 30 June 2010 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <venkatflex@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA393A68CD for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FdsbzI27NhPF for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C99493A6781 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvd12 with SMTP id 12so551447pvd.31 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=XLQ7zpkWUfFpRSmSvPvMLVRiHmmkiwqwxG7ZUoZuE68=; b=ZXVVlbg4vgemZIS1zOg832oCwcY1aGIoW7XL/cb9yA/sP5n3InvqvRHZh8syaut6v/ BwnYnRw7xmmVUN+3j4L4Xx08+6tRC5KJumClq9Y/xD79PD6Lt383Qd5oEZ/3G4mFrtk1 IN+bcp0ZsSgSZTm31yJ8HTCRzMWtf4I+/Fz+s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=aZqhM7wXlnM5f6kwPruye5hFdWQ24WLUmVOgJFaL9VQtX+OLg8zr91/B+v97TwkFEG mqYeDwR1l4o2SNPoj5mWsXmv6qJoP8Q0uamHY/0JWta9Br6gPY4Ks65L+dwd8fJ43PHz 1Qz2pRwB+k5ek9vg4gAri78rj8xzOGjHCNlDY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.143.25.34 with SMTP id c34mr10458714wfj.181.1277913986365; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.167.14 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinjtSuXJoJUKFLPULQkOiqmKtqfnWaa5_CFdgK6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik-HZHcVP8ZZR-kj3bmbHKDsTzlPUdlzvnDepPu@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinjtSuXJoJUKFLPULQkOiqmKtqfnWaa5_CFdgK6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:36:26 +0530
Message-ID: <AANLkTinJtjQdxpaJnn2ye061HN-qzFOd_YD_V9jl_HbH@mail.gmail.com>
From: venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com>
To: mpls-tp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP tunnel and PW establishment over multiple different operators
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:06:19 -0000

Hi,
Can transport guys please reply to the below query?

Thanks,
Venkat.

On 6/30/10, venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Can we establish a LSP/PW between MPLS-TP operators with different
> identifiers (ICC and Global_ID)?
>
> for example,
>
> Operator1 ----------Operator2----------------Operator3----------------Operator-4
> (ICC)                    (ICC)                    (Global_ID)               (Global_ID)
>
> Can single LSP/PW be traversed between Operator1 and Operator-4?
> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
> Operator1 and Operator2 and
> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with these
> two LSPs/PWs for communication across operators?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Venkat.
>
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:13 PM, venkatesan mahalingam <
> venkatflex@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please clarify whether the below operations are valid for MPLS-TP
>> deployment.
>>
>> For example,
>> *Scenario-1:*
>> Operator1 -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3
>>  (ICC - IP capable)    (ICC- IP capable)        (ICC IP incapable)
>>
>>  Can single LSP/PW be established over ICC based operators in an IP and
>> Non-IP environments?
>>  **
>> *Scenario-2:*
>> Operator1
>> -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3----------------------Operator-4
>>  (ICC - IP capable)    (ICC- IP capable)        (ICC IP
>> incapable)               (ICC IP incapable)
>>
>> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
>> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
>> Operator1 and Operator2 and
>> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with
>> these
>> two LSPs/PWs?
>>
>>  *Scenario-3:*
>> Operator1
>> ---------------------------Operator2--------------------------------Operator3
>> (Global_ID - IP capable)    (Global_ID - IP capable)        (Global_ID IP
>> incapable)
>>
>>  Can single LSP/PW be established over Global_ID based operators in an IP
>> and Non-IP environments?
>>  **
>> *Scenario-4:*
>> Operator1
>> -----------------------------Operator2------------------------Operator3------------------------------Operator-4
>>  (Global_ID - IP capable)    (Global_ID- IP capable)        (Global_ID IP
>> incapable)       (Global_ID IP incapable)
>>
>> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
>> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
>> Operator1 and Operator2 and
>> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with
>> these
>> two LSPs/PWs?
>>
>> *Scenario-5:*
>>  Operator1
>> --------------------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3
>>  (Global_ID- IP capable)         (ICC- IP capable)        (Global_ID IP
>> capable)
>>
>>  Can single LSP/PW be established over different operators in an IP
>> environments?
>>  **
>>  *Scenario-6:*
>>  Operator1
>> -----------------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3
>>  (ICC- IP incapable)         (Global- IP incapable)        (ICC IP
>> incapable)
>>
>>  Can single LSP/PW be established over different operators in an Non-IP
>> environments?
>>
>> *Scenario-7:*
>> Operator1
>> -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4
>>  (ICC - IP capable)    (ICC- IP capable)        (Global_ID IP
>> capable)            (Global_ID IP capable)
>>
>> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
>> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
>> Operator1 and Operator2 and
>> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with
>> these
>> two LSPs/PWs?
>>
>>  *Scenario-8:*
>> Operator1
>> -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4
>>  (ICC - IP capable)    (ICC- IP capable)        (Global_ID IP
>> incapable)          (Global_ID IP incapable)
>>
>> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
>> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
>> Operator1 and Operator2 and
>> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with
>> these
>> two LSPs/PWs?
>>
>>  *Scenario-9:*
>> Operator1
>> -------------------Operator2-----------------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4
>>  (ICC - IP capable)    (Global_ID- IP capable)        (ICC IP
>> incapable)          (Global_ID IP incapable)
>>
>> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
>> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
>> Operator1 and Operator2 and
>> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with
>> these
>> two LSPs/PWs?
>>
>>  *Scenario-9:*
>> Operator1
>> -------------------------Operator2------------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4
>>  (ICC - IP capable)    (Global_ID- IP incapable)        (Global_ID IP
>> capable)          (ICC IP incapable)
>>
>> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
>> Is this a valid scenario?
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Venkatesan Mahalingam.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Venkatesan Mahalingam.
>


-- 
Best Regards,
Venkatesan Mahalingam.